Heroes Large General Thread - Page 34

The main problems of WC3 is that it's slow paced and while there are heroes, there weren't much customization or different builds you can really do with Heroes. That and heroes didn't really level up that much (most games ended before any hero got to level 6, to even get their ultimate).

Fix all these problems and I think WC4 has the potential.

I made a post about my ideas for WC4 before but basically I think it'd be neat if they follow a sort of card game formula or a similar formula to DotA in the sense that they are no more races (I think race selection limits the game), there are banning and picking phases for units, heroes, structures. You could have a mix and match of undead and orc units if you wanted in a game (though you'd have to pick their tech structures and food production structures to be able to use them, so there are limitations to race mixing).

And every two months, they'd introduce new units, races, heroes for players to use.

I think three things traditional RTS fall behind compared to DotA or LoL or even card games like Hearthstone (which is catching on and is high on the twitch count right now):

1. Lack of new content. BW is awesome and I consider it my favorite competitive game ever. However, BW eventually did get boring. Sure it was fun to watch for a while but it did eventually get boring.

The reason why BW or SC2 can't just bust out new units or stuff is because the game isn't built that way. It has races and it needs balance.

With DotA, LoL, MTG, (and I'm sure Hearthstone, though Hearthstone does have classes but you can still use a lot of cards that other classes can also use), they can afford to add tons of new stuff regularly because their game is built around players not being limited to a specific race or build.

Even if player themselves aren't revolutionizing the game with new strategies or whatever, the developers of those games can help directly by adding new content.

Everyone likes new content. If there's no new stuff, eventually people will get tired of it and leave.

2. Variety in play. What makes DotA, LoL, MTG, etc superior to watch is because there's always something new the same players can do.

When a team picked Treant Protector, everyone goes "It's Treant Protector! They're going to do something epic!" (this was before Icefrog did the last major Treant Protector buff, before he became a bit more standard).

It's great to have that types of things.

What can SC2 players do? Well, I guess they could try building Carriers but that's basically it. Most of the strategies and everything becomes standard and mostly the same fare in SC2.

This sort of goes along with point #1 but I think having actual races and never having any new additions to the game is what really limits the (current) traditional RTS genre.

3. Less "randomness" and also (in general) a more clear reason why you lost or won a game. BW was a great game but it suffered from this. SC2 is not bad but it also suffers from this too.

What do you mean randomness? I mean BO loses or wins or cheeses that can easily win or lose a game early on. Cannon rushing, marine scv pulls, baneling all ins, etc.

Those things are said to add excitement and uncertainty to the game, and it does but I don't think it's good for the health of the game and I think people do eventually get tired of games ending like that.

First of all, there are better ways to add excitement to the game. Again, my Treant Protector example from Dota 2 (for example). In Dota 2, there aren't really any build orders or cheeses or any weird stuff you can do to catch your opponents off guard and win easily. This is simply due to the picking and banning phase and how the phase of the game works (it's almost impossible to lose or win a game early in Dota compared to SC2). That type of excitement is better than the type we have in SC2.

Also it speaks of the consistency of players.

In Dota 2, we've had Navi reach the grand finals of the two major tournaments twice in a row.

WarCraft 3 is even better. WC3 have had almost the same few people winning the exact same tournaments throughout the years.

Yes, we've had consistent champions in SC2 (Polt is a good recent example) but it's not as often. I say there are a few reasons. First, I think the ability to differentiate yourself from other players is less than in BW (for example). With Mutalisk, there were so many different ways to micro them and none of it came done to purely "speed". In SC2, a lot of major micro is just more of a "speed" thing than anything else.

Second, again, the game has many aspects where you can lose or win games easily (makes it much more randomness). The combined two, we have cases where it's hard for players to be consistently top. Though to be fair, SC2 is fairly good. While it may not be the top 10, the majority of the top 100 players from 2011 (I say SC2's prime) are still the top 100 players today. So, SC2 isn't too bad but there can be improvement to how players can differentiate themselves and rise above others (for example).

In terms of traditional RTS, WC3 is great and it did a great job in terms of not really having any "coin flippy" strategies or builds you can do that outright win or lose a game. In terms of pacing, games generally go on to at least the 15 minute mark and rarely ending before then (which probably helps).

It's hard to outright win or lose games in WC3 within 10 minutes. There are many situations that can happen but a lot of it can be avoided a lot much easier than in SC2 (in SC2, there really isn't many ways to avoid or know about baneling busts or cannon rushing or them doing a proxy rax or something).

[Edit - After rereading this, this is redundant with what I said earlier but since I already typed everything already... I'll just leave it in >.>]
WC3's biggest weakness is the fact that people did usually do the exact same thing however the game has a ton of potential, so it did get old. Of course again, it's biggest strength is consistency due to lack of BO wins or loses or coin flips or randomness. WC4 can fix this by following the card game route or Dota route of:

1. Removing race limitations. Picking orc or undead, I think that really limits the game. Yes, it's crazy talk for a traditional RTS but I think it's time for attempts at innovation and it can work. Instead, you have a certain number of slots (or points) to pick a combination of races. Though when you mix and match, you need to use slots/points to pick their respective tech structures and food production structures (like with MTG where if you want a 5 color deck, you need to have 5 land types of all 5 colors, it wasn't practical in most cases but it was an option).

2. Regularly adding new units, heroes, new content in general. This is the major thing every major online game needs nowadays. Regular new content to keep people interested. With WC4, they could add new races, new units, new heroes, etc. They add the new Panda race with new panda units! I can't wait to try to fit those panda units into my current orc/undead setup!

3. Picking and banning phases (basically, allow you to see what your opponent strategies or plans may be more clearly so you before the game even starts). With Dota, there are two great thing about the picking and banning phases: 1. It adds another layer of depth to the game and it involves interaction with your opponent. 2. It allows you to understand what's going to happen so you can avoid outright loses (or the opponent can avoid outright wins from you). It removes randomness and makes it less likely for games to end due to build order loses or wins.

Overall, I think WC4 has potential to one of the best online game ever.

A bit off topic to discussion of HotS but something related to the previous discussion in what Blizzard can do with new games. Honestly, I think the market is a bit saturated with Dota, LoL, etc.

It is true a lot of non-Dota or non-LoL players may be interested and may try out HotS but unlike with Hearthstone (which is actually winning people from MTG, though in a few cases only), I don't think Heroes of the Storm can (easily) win over already established Dota or LoL players.

Hearthstone has a huge advantage in that MTGO client is still kind of buggy and outdated (compared to the Hearthstone client).

Also, it's entry level to start is not as steep as MTG (Hearthstone you can grind your way for any card while MTG, you do have to pay money to have a reasonable deck).

Finally, the important thing is, Hearthstone's mechanics are different enough to differentiate itself from MTG.

Heroes of the Storm on the other hand, I don't know what major mechanics it can have to really differentiate itself from Dota or LoL.